The five biggest issues with the 'Official Story'

reply to post by GoodOlDave

I don't get your point. Are the issues you're having with "the official story" really a concern why they didn't make these things part of the "official story"?[

Thanks Dave....yes and no....My problem is that the very OS that we are told to rely on and believe ...itself falls apart from within the very agencies that were there to promote the OS...The 9/11 commission...and the disagreements between the two main agencies on how the story was sold to the public.

WTC 7 is a conundrum in and of itself...It was not attacked....but I do believe it was to be attacked...by 93...but that will be anyones guess....It is just my guess...When asked about the OEM I have my own suspicions...but no real proof...so i try to stay away from them without such,...but when crime solving all one can go on in many cases is just that...suspicion until some facts can be put together.

But i am also not like many...if asked i will say what they are....I believe 93 was set to strike wtc7....operations were being orchestrated from the OEM...that is why they ordered evacuation from wtc7...maybe when the towers came down the building suffered damage which messed up flt controls for the aircraft...and that became the problem maybe that is how 93 got messed up....possibility...but that is all it is...but it is one i think fits...it is one i would look into...and try to....Ok lets just go with pure conjecture here...My story....I think they evacuated wtc7 cause they knew the plane was going to strike it ...that was the game plan....they want 7 down too...and all was going to plan till something happened when the towers came down...maybe 93 lost signal to the comptroller and that is where they had a problem...and they did not know really how to deal with the fact their plan was going wrong...they sat there sweating for hours trying to decide what to do...lots of phones calls going on...Larry needing to come up with something...the only option was to pull it.

Like i say...to me flt 93 is the real big herring....it is the one thing that went completely wrong on the day....the plan was falling apart....and WTC7 held evidence against them...they knew when they brought the building down it was going to look bad....also in those phone calls(assumed) timing was off and that is why it came out early that it had collapsed. WTC 7 was a target IMHO...and the target still had to come down even thought there was no aircraft to neatly fit in anymore to explain the collapse.

Originally posted by plube
reply to post by exponent

 

Thanks for the Reply and i appreciate your answer to the questions about the function of the thread....good luck in trying to decide what are the most important questions....And also as you know from our discussions...i too think the back and forth bickering achieves very little...And i do also have to agree with Dave in some points...which is difficult for me as i tend to see truthers get classed as tin foil hat wearing psychotics that do not have a brain in their heads...But i have to say i am finding Dave to almost slip over to the darkside on occasion.

So Dave....don't be afraid....truthers can be nice sometimes...I know i can't be....but i have reasons why i fight against the machine so much...as it has affected me personally with false allegations by officials who hold the OS as gospel.

Methinks you have been listening to the propaganda of your fellow conspiracy theorists a tad too much, as I've never said I believe "the official story", and it's the reason why I put "the official story" in quotes because I know there's more to "the official story" than what we know. I concur there's been a coverup, it's just that I believe the coverup is to conceal the monumental incompetence leading up to and during the 9/11 attack, 'casuse noone wants to admit being the one who used an imminent warning of a terrorist attack as a placemat while eating lunch at their desk. It's just that my version of what the conspiracy is sounds boring to the truthers so in their blind faith in their own conspiracy theories they instinctively label everyone who refuses to be converted to their Church of the Paranoia...including me...as being "goosestepping loyal believers of the OS". Such people cannot comprehend there can be people who mistrust the gov't AND not believe their conspiracy claims, and they only serve to obfuscate all true attempts to research what happened during 9/11. You might as well as the Pope to document the theory of evolution.

Of course, I'm supposed to be a sinister secret agent sent to this board to spy on you all, so what would I know?

reply to post by GoodOlDave


Well that was good stuff there Dave....I am not sure about any sinister secret agents....I have dealt with the real life sinister people that have stopped me from going to the middle east (Palestine).
And that was orchestrated by paranoid delusional Zionist loving people who think they have the right to remove people from what they do just because of their thoughts....So worrying about some made up things to do with people online is not much of a worry to me...because i know what can happen in reality for just stating your views to people who do not agree with your point of view.
Could their be agents of some kind on here....OF course there could be...and one would have to be pretty naive to think otherwise....would you not agree...Are you one?.....heck i don't know...i mean i could be one as far as that goes....but that is just speculation....But as for listening to other conspiracy theorist's ....not a chance...I draw my own conclusions...and do i actually think the scenario i stated is possible...yes i do...but can i prove that...believe me...if i did find solid evidence of it, I most certainly show it...but would i go about falsifying such evidence to meet my views....no chance....I like facts...and facts are what will solve the crime...innuendos...and speculation is just that and nothing more.

And from what i read...i can see you do not fully believe the OS....but was it just a comedy of errors...not so sure here....because the numbers of errors goes far beyond comic relief.

Originally posted by plube
But i am also not like many...if asked i will say what they are....I believe 93 was set to strike wtc7....operations were being orchestrated from the OEM...that is why they ordered evacuation from wtc7...maybe when the towers came down the building suffered damage which messed up flt controls for the aircraft...and that became the problem maybe that is how 93 got messed up....possibility...but that is all it is...but it is one i think fits...it is one i would look into...and try to....Ok lets just go with pure conjecture here...My story....I think they evacuated wtc7 cause they knew the plane was going to strike it ...that was the game plan....they want 7 down too...and all was going to plan till something happened when the towers came down...maybe 93 lost signal to the comptroller and that is where they had a problem...and they did not know really how to deal with the fact their plan was going wrong...they sat there sweating for hours trying to decide what to do...lots of phones calls going on...Larry needing to come up with something...the only option was to pull it.

To which I will ask...

a) do you agree or disagree that when a freakishly large building like the north tower collapsed, it's going to throw wreckage all over the place

b) do you agree or disagree that when it throws wreckage all over the place, it's going to cause additional damage to the neighboring area/buildings

c) do you agree or disagree that when eyewitnesses report things like "the lobby looked like king Kong came in and destroyed the lobby" and "the fires were burning out of control and causing a three story tall deformation bulging in the structure" this is evidence of severe damage?

d) Do you agree or disagree that if you were in a small building next to a freakishly large building, and the freakishly large building explodes after a plane crashed into it, as you're looking up at this mess towering above you, there will be enough reason for you to want to get the hell out of there completely separate and distinct from any secret plot?

Like i say...to me flt 93 is the real big herring....it is the one thing that went completely wrong on the day....the plan was falling apart....and WTC7 held evidence against them...they knew when they brought the building down it was going to look bad....also in those phone calls(assumed) timing was off and that is why it came out early that it had collapsed. WTC 7 was a target IMHO...and the target still had to come down even thought there was no aircraft to neatly fit in anymore to explain the collapse.

??? so i If these secret gov't ninjas could sneak into two huge towers and plant these hidden explosives without being detected then why couldn't they likewise sneak into a building 1/3 their size and steal whatever this "evidence they held against them" is you're referring to? The Soviets were getting away with doing that all throughout the cold war.

Let's be honest here- are you certain you're simply not looking at the events that transpired and then trying to see how a conspiracy would explain it?

Originally posted by plube
reply to post by GoodOlDave

 

Well that was good stuff there Dave....I am not sure about any sinister secret agents....I have dealt with the real life sinister people that have stopped me from going to the middle east (Palestine).
And that was orchestrated by paranoid delusional Zionist loving people who think they have the right to remove people from what they do just because of their thoughts....So worrying about some made up things to do with people online is not much of a worry to me...because i know what can happen in reality for just stating your views to people who do not agree with your point of view.

But I would think that would only prove my point. I'm presuming you're referring to the Israelis, and Israel is a sterling example of someone doing a certain thing "becuase God told them to do it"...which largely explains the founding of Israel right there. The OTHER sterling example of someone doign something "becuase God told them to do it" are the Islamic fundamentalists, and I think there are enough examples of this you can come up with on your own.

THEREFORE, if a small group of such religious zealots somehow got the idea in their heads that hijacking a bunch of airplanes and using them in suicide attacks woukd please God somehow, why is this really that outlandish? I don't know if you follow such things, but a few years back in California there was a religious cult where all the members put on track suits and committed suicide so their souls could board a UFO hidden behind a comet. Oh, and that's before they all cut off their testicles so all the members could unite in a unisex gender. If someone can seriously believe something so [censored] in the head like that, then thinking that crashing a plane into a building will somehow earn them 72 virgins in paradise is practically normal in comparison.

Can you at least concur the desire for Islamic fundamentalists to pull off something so monumental as the 9/11 attack could exist? That IS the main point being put forth by "the official story" after all, so it seems to me that the strength in the desire to go down one of these alternative scenarios is directly in relation to the disbelief that fanatics in the Islamic world would be so outer space religiously zealous that they'd, oh, I don't know, riot over cartoons of Mohammed printed in Danish newspapers.

Here's my questions...why is the Bush administration covering the Saudi connection as well as other elements investigating terrorism?

CIA Didn't Share Info About 9/11 Hijackers

The report also criticizes the FBI for questioning whether its informant, Shaikh, held back advance knowledge of the Sept. 11 plot. The FBI defended its decision, citing significant inconsistencies in his statements and inconclusive results from a lie detector test.

Shaik, however, insisted the results were not inconclusive. "I did not fail that lie detector test," he said.

In its report, the committee also says it was denied access to the informant by the Bush administration, which would not allow a subpoena to be delivered.

Why are skeptics wrong for thinking the "19 Men hijacked planes and flew them into buildings" story is not all believable?

You have the FBI being restricted from investigating the Saudi link and now you have the Bush administration not allowing access to an informant who was "tracking" the hijackers? Incompetence? More like cover up.

The simple fact that the FBI was blocked from doing any Saudi investigation and the fact that Bush pointed the finger at Iraq just goes to show there was an agenda here.

Report Links Saudi Government to 9/11 Hijackers, Sources Say

WASHINGTON — The 27 classified pages of a congressional report about Sept. 11 depict a Saudi government that not only provided significant money and aid to the suicide hijackers but also allowed potentially hundreds of millions of dollars to flow to Al Qaeda and other terrorist groups through suspect charities and other fronts, according to sources familiar with the document.

One U.S. official who has read the classified section said it describes "very direct, very specific links" between Saudi officials, two of the San Diego-based hijackers and other potential co-conspirators "that cannot be passed off as rogue, isolated or coincidental."

So there's all this evidence of Saudi officials funding the hijackers, there's an extreme lack of evidence with a Saddam/Al-Qaeda connection as well as reports of WMDs in Iraq, but we point the finger and spend trillions of dollars to invade Iraq anyways? If you really think the gov't was just incompetent in making this decision it really makes me believe you're the one who's incompetent. Trillions of dollars are not just spent on something that turns out to be "incompetence", "accidental" or a "mis-communication".

Originally posted by GoodOlDave

Originally posted by plube
reply to post by GoodOlDave

 

Well that was good stuff there Dave....I am not sure about any sinister secret agents....I have dealt with the real life sinister people that have stopped me from going to the middle east (Palestine).
And that was orchestrated by paranoid delusional Zionist loving people who think they have the right to remove people from what they do just because of their thoughts....So worrying about some made up things to do with people online is not much of a worry to me...because i know what can happen in reality for just stating your views to people who do not agree with your point of view.

But I would think that would only prove my point. I'm presuming you're referring to the Israelis, and Israel is a sterling example of someone doing a certain thing "becuase God told them to do it"...which largely explains the founding of Israel right there. The OTHER sterling example of someone doign something "becuase God told them to do it" are the Islamic fundamentalists, and I think there are enough examples of this you can come up with on your own.

THEREFORE, if a small group of such religious zealots somehow got the idea in their heads that hijacking a bunch of airplanes and using them in suicide attacks woukd please God somehow, why is this really that outlandish?

Because as devoted to this religion as these hijackers were, they broke some serious laws within their religion while planning their path to becoming Martyrs.

Seedy secrets of hijackers who broke Muslim laws
THE leader of the September 11 terrorists and four other hijackers made several trips to Las Vegas over the summer to hold meetings, gamble and be entertained by topless dancers.
According to the FBI, Mohamed Atta, the pilot of the first hijacked aircraft that crashed into the World Trade Centre, and his accomplices spent some of their time in Las Vegas at the Olympic Bar, a downtown strip club.

If you're going to take your life for your religion, why would you break some serious laws within that religion? Wouldn't that forbid you from becoming any type of martyr?

I concur that overly Zealous people can and are capable of a great many things...but I also think that this kind of operation requires a lot more than a group of people being overly Zealous....I like to look at motive....Follow the money...see who benefits from the crime....and what the group would reap from such an attack...was it clearly just revenge...or was there another purpose to it.

I don't see how the Islamists in any way shape or form benefited from these attacks...but i do see how Israel has benefited from the attacks...I also am pretty sure that a group like Mossad had the skills and abilities...I also know a fair amount about Jerome Hauer....the man who had the skills and knowledge who was also a man who had access to Anthrax...Do you remember the anthrax scared shortly after 9/11.

I have no problem stating the connections...and your very welcome to see my viewpoints along these lines in my Zionist thread in my Signature....I followed a trail of lies deceit and money so if you want my views on it...it is there blatantly in the open for all to read....I know how mossad has used fake passports for operations in the past...I know a lot about Zionists in the shadow governments all around the world.

I know that the ones who had the money...the resources ...and the motive for the crime lays directly in the hands of the Zionists....Are there Islamic fundamentalist out there that would love to target and hurt America....Yes there is....But IMHO...I personally think they would hit a soft target such as say a football stadium being attended by 40,000 stinking infidels .......than risk it all in a attacked that would strike a target like the towers....also if you follow the money you will notice a fews things....Enron .....The DOD Navel discrepency(the pentagon)...

h1,h2,h3 air bases in Iraq...protecting none other than a pipeline that feeds directly into Israel...It is what i believe...and i am not asking you to believe it....It is just what i believe....I do not go for the hap hazard ill trained hijackers with box cutters managing to over take professionals with very little resistance...not in one instance...not in two instances...not in three...but in four separate cases....that is just my opinion...is it wrong...could be....does that make me nuts for thinking it...I think not...I would think myself more nuts to believe that it was a bunch Zealots that just got lucky all in one day

Is that ok with you?....Am i allowed to think that way....Or because i think that way does it make me an enemy of America.....I am not sure.

You see your ok to think that way...i am not going to categorize you for thinking it is true...that it was over Zealous Islamics.....but I just can't bring myself to that...as for me it is so far fetched it is beyond belief....Do i know all the full execution of 9/11 and who did what...I can honestly say no.

But i do know how easy it is to get workers to do small bits of jobs that seem perfectly normal...but when the whole piece comes together it is not what you thought it would be,,,,if you understand what i am saying.

I could go hire a bunch of kids of the street to carry sacks of stuff from trucks into a building and they would not question a thing...I could tell my security team to let people in to a area...and they would not suspect a thing...they would just be doing a job they were paid to do....Is it possible that this did occur to some extent...could be.

Do i know this to be the case...no i don't....but i ask you how do you know it was the case that 19 hijackers hijacked the planes and did this...i mean really ...how do you personally know this is the case without me insinuating how you know.

reply to post by psikeyhackr


Right psikeyhackr please answer this question look at the video below of the North Tower collapse, now from the point that the tower starts to collapse for the first 2-3 seconds from 0:31 to 0:34 were does the falling mass go in your best physics please

We will do this in stages and maybe it will sink in that this is not the simple 2 mass collision you ANOK and others think it is

reply to post by wmd_2008


I could put up my breakdown for you here...it might help out....the mass can only proceed straight down due to gravity....It will only travel off in another direction if it encounters resistance...or another force acts upon the mass...but hey i could be wrong....but then that would be odd in this instance...since it is pretty straight forward.

Maybe i should not reply....as the question is for Psik......but i broke that vid down frame by frame....here it is.

Can't get any slower that that can you.....?












just a not....there are three more floors that could not be represented in the white block drawing as it goes past the bottom of the frame....but the red line on the right does show bottom.

now this is ten frames...and the video runs at 29fps so these ten frames represent approximately 1/3s

feel free to reference this.

Originally posted by homervb

If you're going to take your life for your religion, why would you break some serious laws within that religion? Wouldn't that forbid you from becoming any type of martyr?

I can't say, and I doubt we'll ever know since they're all dead...BUT if you want my own personal conjecture, I'd say that the more religiously zealous a person is, the more practiced they will be at coming up with excuses for why God approves of everything they do. Let's face it, the Catholic church throughout its history has committed crimes against humanity that rivalled the Nazis- burning "witches" at the stake, destroying "heretic" literature (which is why despite the 1000 year history of the Atzec empire, the only written record they've made that survived is a warehouse manifest), using slave labor, invasions of neutral countries like the crusades, outright graft like the purchase of indulgences, the repression of free speech like Galileo's dissertation of the solar system, the covering up of crimes like pedophile priests, the list goes on and on. Every single one of the characters pulling these stunts thought they were earning themselves a ticket to heaven by doing them. Why would Islamic fundamentalists be any less phony in their own religion?

As this train of thought would almost certainly upset, well, anyone reading this, it's self evident why this wouldn't make its way into the "official story".

Originally posted by plube
I don't see how the Islamists in any way shape or form benefited from these attacks...but i do see how Israel has benefited from the attacks...I also am pretty sure that a group like Mossad had the skills and abilities...I also know a fair amount about Jerome Hauer....the man who had the skills and knowledge who was also a man who had access to Anthrax...Do you remember the anthrax scared shortly after 9/11.

To which I would add..

a) There is a difference between "what someone hoped to gain" and "what they actually gained". Japan hoped to gain exclusive control of the Pacific and a negotiated treaty with the US by bombing Pearl Harbor. What they actually gained was the complete dismantling of the Japanese empire. We can make all sorts of guesses on what al Qaida hoped to gain from the attack, from increasing their credibility throughout the Muslim world to the hope we'd chicken out and stop meddling in the mideast, but it's fair to say whatever it was, they didn't anticipate the outcome either. This by itself is not sufficient indication of impropriety.

b) Whatever your opinions are of Israel and Mossad, you'll certinly need to concede they aren't stupid. If this really were a false flag operation of their making, they'd be framing a target that furthered their own agenda, like Palestine or Syria, not some fourth world country so worthless that not even the Soviets thought it was worth fighting over.

h1,h2,h3 air bases in Iraq...protecting none other than a pipeline that feeds directly into Israel...It is what i believe...and i am not asking you to believe it....It is just what i believe....I do not go for the hap hazard ill trained hijackers with box cutters managing to over take professionals with very little resistance...not in one instance...not in two instances...not in three...but in four separate cases....that is just my opinion...is it wrong...could be....does that make me nuts for thinking it...I think not...I would think myself more nuts to believe that it was a bunch Zealots that just got lucky all in one day

To which I would respond, those people fighting to usurp the new gov't in Iraq know said gov't supports its war machine through oil revenues, so they would target EVERY oil pipeline, not just the one going to Israel, so the coalition would need to protect EVERY pipelline, nbot just the one goign to Israel. The money they're collecting from selling oil to China buys literally the same bullets that the money coming from Israel would. It seems to me you're taking the "Israeli oil" out of context here to make it sound more sinister than it really is.

But i do know how easy it is to get workers to do small bits of jobs that seem perfectly normal...but when the whole piece comes together it is not what you thought it would be,,,,if you understand what i am saying.

Do i know this to be the case...no i don't....but i ask you how do you know it was the case that 19 hijackers hijacked the planes and did this...i mean really ...how do you personally know this is the case without me insinuating how you know.

Because if you take each individual component of the 9/11 attack...

-bombing public buildings and other soft targets
-staging mind blowingly creative attacks
-indiscriminate murder of civilians
-hijacking of civilian aircraft
-staging suicide attacks
-coordinated attacks of multiple targets at once
-operational results which don't justify the expenditure of resources used to produce them

...you will see that Islamic Fundamentalists have ALREADY committed every single one of these in the past, from infiltrating the Olympic village and slaughtering Israeli athletes in Munich, to forcing three hijacked passenger jets to the Jordanian desert to blow them up, to the suicide truck bombing of the Marine barracks in Beiruit, to hijacking an Italian cruise liner which gained them literally nothing whatsoever. In an event of a crime that has unknown culprits, the most likely suspect is usually one who has done that sort of crime before, so for the truthers to consciously ignore the one suspect that not only is uniquely qualified to commit such a crime like the 9/11 attack, but who have actually committed these very same crimes elsewhere in the past, seems unrealistic to me.

It would be akin to your going to a restaurant that has many recorded health violations where many people have already become sick, and after you eat there you become sick yourself. You don't need a room full of detectives from New Scotland Yard to figure out how you became sick.

Originally posted by GoodOlDave

Originally posted by homervb

If you're going to take your life for your religion, why would you break some serious laws within that religion? Wouldn't that forbid you from becoming any type of martyr?

I can't say, and I doubt we'll ever know since they're all dead...BUT if you want my own personal conjecture, I'd say that the more religiously zealous a person is, the more practiced they will be at coming up with excuses for why God approves of everything they do. Let's face it, the Catholic church throughout its history has committed crimes against humanity that rivalled the Nazis- burning "witches" at the stake, destroying "heretic" literature (which is why despite the 1000 year history of the Atzec empire, the only written record they've made that survived is a warehouse manifest), using slave labor, invasions of neutral countries like the crusades, outright graft like the purchase of indulgences, the repression of free speech like Galileo's dissertation of the solar system, the covering up of crimes like pedophile priests, the list goes on and on. Every single one of the characters pulling these stunts thought they were earning themselves a ticket to heaven by doing them. Why would Islamic fundamentalists be any less phony in their own religion?

You're right about all of that except those were people doing harm to others, not including themselves. These hijackers knew they were going to die. It is all speculation but if you're willing to take your life to become a martyr I don't see how it's logical to break every other rule on your journey. I'm not saying I know these people's thought process, but from an outsider's view it doesn't make sense.

Originally posted by homervb

You're right about all of that except those were people doing harm to others, not including themselves. These hijackers knew they were going to die. It is all speculation but if you're willing to take your life to become a martyr I don't see how it's logical to break every other rule on your journey. I'm not saying I know these people's thought process, but from an outsider's view it doesn't make sense.

You're overlooking Jonestown, where the reverend Jim Jones set up some Christian camp out in the jungle that was all but a prison, and when the authorities started snooping around he murdered a US congressman and got his followers to drink poisoned Kool-Aid. There's evidence they knew full well it was poisoned but they drank it anyway because the Reverend Jim Jones told them to.

The OTHER possibility is that the people reporting they were doing this were lying through their teeth. There was one former stripper (forgot her name) who reported she was the girlfriend of Mohammed Atta. She told people he was drinking, snorting coc aine, and even dismembered her kittens during an argument. If memory serves I think she even told this to the 9/111 commission as well. Later, she acknowledged she made the whole thing up. I'll be the first to admit that until she came forward, she even suckered me with her credibility since she also said Atta had pilot's licenses from every country he lived in. Literally everything she said or says is in doubt now.

So the question is, just WHO is it that's reporting Atta was hanging out with strippers and getting drunk? If it's this same person that told people she was his girlfriend then she suckered you just as she had suckered me, so yes, there is a lot of confirmed cases of false information that invalidates parts of "the official story" to put it in doubt already...but that doesn't mean there's some sinister secret plot to take over the world, either.

It simply means we were pretty naive to take the word of a stripper at face value.

Originally posted by wmd_2008
reply to post by psikeyhackr

 

Right psikeyhackr please answer this question look at the video below of the North Tower collapse, now from the point that the tower starts to collapse for the first 2-3 seconds from 0:31 to 0:34 were does the falling mass go in your best physics please

The mass of the core would have to come down on top of the stationary portion of the core below. The mass outside the core would come down outside the core.

But how could it detach from the falling core?

We cannot see what is happening inside the building. So if what happened was SOLELY THE RESULT OF airliner impact and fire then it must be explained in terms of accurate data about the structure of the building. So why doesn't everyone want accurate data? Why don't we have the tons of steel in the core at every level?

I have never even seen the tons of steel of the trusses and pans in a single floor assembly.

Higgs Bosons with box cutters did 9/11!

The physics profession will look stupid if it demands that data now.

psik

reply to post by psikeyhackr

Why don't we have the tons of steel in the core at every level?

Its in the report that you can't be bothered to read. Not that its relevant, but its in there. Maybe, someday, you'll actually read the report. You may find it interesting. But I doubt it.

reply to post by psikeyhackr

Why don't we have the tons of steel in the core at every level?

Its in the report that you can't be bothered to read. Not that its relevant, but its in there. Maybe, someday, you'll actually read the report. You may find it interesting. But I doubt it.

Originally posted by psikeyhackr

The mass of the core would have to come down on top of the stationary portion of the core below.

While this is true, the mass is not being concentrated on the columns. Rather, it was most likely hitting the floors and glancing off the columns at best. Therefore, any structural resistance given to the falling mass would depend on the strength of the floor connections in the core area, and perhaps not even that if columns punch through those floors.

Do you agree?

The mass outside the core would come down outside the core.

Not entirely true. the floors definitely come down on other floors. Resistance to the falling mass would depend on the strength of those connections.

The ext columns never fell on top of each other. this is not disputable.

But how could it detach from the falling core?

The floors outside the core would detach themselves when the connections broke.

We cannot see what is happening inside the building.

True, but we CAN see that the floor connection broke off in a downward manner (failed from the falling mass hitting the floors) . This is detailed in the NIST report.

The physics profession will look stupid if it demands that data now.

psik

Indeed they would. for any analysis should be done by engineers, not physicists.

Originally posted by Fluffaluffagous

Originally posted by psikeyhackr

The mass of the core would have to come down on top of the stationary portion of the core below.

While this is true, the mass is not being concentrated on the columns. Rather, it was most likely hitting the floors and glancing off the columns at best. Therefore, any structural resistance given to the falling mass would depend on the strength of the floor connections in the core area, and perhaps not even that if columns punch through those floors.

Do you agree?

The mass outside the core would come down outside the core.

Not entirely true. the floors definitely come down on other floors. Resistance to the falling mass would depend on the strength of those connections.

The ext columns never fell on top of each other. this is not disputable.

But how could it detach from the falling core?

The floors outside the core would detach themselves when the connections broke.

We cannot see what is happening inside the building.

True, but we CAN see that the floor connection broke off in a downward manner (failed from the falling mass hitting the floors) . This is detailed in the NIST report.

The physics profession will look stupid if it demands that data now.

psik

Indeed they would. for any analysis should be done by engineers, not physicists.

Engineering is nothing but applied physics. Structural engineering is thousands of years old but accurate math for it has only been developed in the last few hundred years. Transistors are not even 100 years old. Do you doubt that electrical engineers can do the math for structural engineering? But transistors are solid state physics. Structural engineers have made themselves a laughing stock with 9/11. All they can do is try to intimidate people into believing them because of their degrees. But the conservation of momentum alone indicates that the collapse time makes no sense but the conservation of momentum is not part of DESIGNING a building. Those multi-ton masses are not supposed to hit each other.

Do you notice that you make no mention of the horizontal beams connecting the columns of the core. It is like you don't think they exist. The horizontal beams in the falling portion would have to hit the horizontal beams in the lower stationary portion. They were what the floors had to rest on. The length of horizontal steel was around 2.5 times as great as the vertical steel on each level in the core.

psik

How hot were the fires? The fires ranged in intensity and the temperatures achieved that day were found to be hot enough to weaken the structure by video evidence and comparison as well as NIST testing to give temps. You do not need to test yourself.

Was the fireproofing damaged or defective? Damaged and in some cases it was found the application may not have been up to standard.

Could the fires have affected the steel? Yes. Most materials, when heated, will lose the strength that is created by forging.

What would heating the steel have resulted in? The heating of the steel would have made the structure unstable and at some point would not be able to hold the loads designed for use by steel that is not heated.

Can trusses cause the exterior colum bowing? Could there have been pull, yes, and this is a point of investigation as to was it the dampners that failed or the columns themselves